When a buyer asks ChatGPT, Perplexity or Gemini who to hire, the shortlist it returns is the pitch list - before any website visit, before any call. I run structured sprints that get you on it.
Buyers stopped scrolling ten blue links. They ask an AI model to shortlist agencies, read the three or four names it returns, and start there. If your firm isn't one of them, you're not losing the pitch - you never got the meeting.
Publishing more blog posts rarely fixes this. Most sites have no visibility because there's nothing consistent for a model to work with: no repeated authority claims, no content structured for AI extraction, nothing to cite with confidence.
Before I publish a single article, I define what you stand for - the claims that need to show up, consistently, across every AI answer. Content is the vehicle. Positioning is the work.
The handful of claims every AI answer needs to repeat back about you.
Built for how a model reads a page, not how a search engine ranks one.
Steady output so gains stack up instead of fading between articles.
Weekly checks across 8 LLMs, feeding straight into next month's targets.
A specialist UK digital marketing agency went from no presence in ChatGPT, Perplexity or Claude to cited by all eight major LLMs, in one eight-week on-site sprint.
During the sprint, a global consumer brand found us through Google/Gemini and came in as an inbound enquiry - before any outreach, before any paid activity. Eight weeks earlier, we had zero presence in AI search.Chief Marketing Officer · UK Digital Marketing Agency
Read the full case study, including inbound leads and methodology →
Every engagement starts with the same question: what does the data say your firm needs? From there, I scope one of two shapes. Either way, you work with me directly - no account managers, no handoffs to a junior team.
For firms with little or no AI search presence who need proof, fast.
For firms ready to compound the gains, so visibility doesn't fade once the sprint ends.
3-month minimum, then month-to-month.
Scope a retainer See the full Retainer breakdown →I run your buyer prompts across eight LLMs to record where you stand and check that AI crawlers can read your site. We agree how articles get published: direct CMS access, or a publish-by date for each article. I also ask whether you already work with a PR agency, because it decides your Retainer path later.
A discovery session on what your firm does, who it is for and what you want to be known for. We leave with your prompts prioritised and three or four authority pillars drafted.
I confirm the target phrases and propose article titles. You have three business days to approve, and no response counts as approval. A requested change moves the start date back and leaves the writing schedule alone.
I publish six articles, one a week, each built for LLM citation. At Week 6 I compare the numbers with your baseline and aim the last two articles at what has moved.
We review the data together, with named, recommended and cited reported as three separate numbers. My recommendation on the Retainer comes from that data.
Four weeks after the last article, I run the same prompts again to show how much of the result holds without new work.
In a University of Toronto replay, ChatGPT's cited pages overlapped by only 15% between two runs of the same question on the same day. One answer tells you little about your visibility. A share of answers over several weeks tells you more.
Flagging the answer is worth doing, but it won't fix the next one. What works is finding where the error came from and putting clear, specific facts where AI tools look.
For getting cited in ChatGPT or Google's AI answers, no. Google's own guidance and two large studies point the same way.